Introduction
The evidence for a claim sometimes sits in documents held by the opposing party or by a third party: a set of records, correspondence, an agreement or an exchange of emails. A party with a legitimate interest may claim inspection of those documents or a copy of them. On 1 January 2025 the familiar duty to produce documents under Section 843a of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP) was repealed and absorbed into a new regime in Sections 194 to 195a DCCP. The core has stayed the same, while the conditions and the scope have been widened and clarified in places. The outlines of the doctrine remain visible in the case law on the former Section 843a DCCP, which keeps its significance under the new law.
From Section 843a to Section 194 DCCP
Section 843a DCCP is still cited widely in practice, but as of 1 January 2025 it has been replaced by the regime of Section 194 et seq. DCCP, placed in the new part on inspection, copies and extracts of information. The regime allows a free-standing claim for inspection, even where no proceedings on the merits are pending, and in places it widens both the range of documents and the circumstances in which inspection may be claimed. A party still relying on Section 843a DCCP would do well to test the claim afresh under the new law: the requirements of a legitimate interest, sufficiently specified documents and a legal relationship all return, in modernised form.
The requirements: legitimate interest, specified documents and a legal relationship
A claim will be granted where the applicant has a legitimate interest in the inspection, where the documents are described with sufficient precision and where there is a legal relationship to which the applicant is a party. An undirected search, a fishing expedition, will not be granted. In a recent judgment the Supreme Court clarified how strictly this operates: a claim for copies of "all correspondence" relating to an agreement and of all documents evidencing payments is insufficiently specified and lacks a concrete legitimate interest, whereas inspection of the agreement itself could be granted (Supreme Court 5 December 2025, ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1812). The documents must therefore be identified concretely enough, and the interest must be substantiated for each category.
The concept of a legal relationship was also sharpened in that judgment. A legal relationship may arise not only from a contract but directly from statute: a statutory obligation qualifies as a legal relationship within the meaning of Section 843a (former) DCCP. The duty of an agent to account for its work (Section 7:403(2) of the Dutch Civil Code) may thus provide a basis for inspection of an adviser's file. The court then weighs the interest in inspection against the interests of the party holding the documents, including confidentiality and the protection of trade secrets.
Attachment for the preservation of evidence: preserve first, inspect later
To prevent evidence from disappearing before inspection can be enforced, an attachment for the preservation of evidence may be levied with leave of the provisional relief judge. That such an attachment is available outside intellectual property cases as well was decided by the Supreme Court in a preliminary ruling: Sections 730 and 843a DCCP provide a sufficient basis, provided the conditions of Section 843a DCCP are met and the attachment is confined to sufficiently specified documents, digital files included (Supreme Court 13 September 2013, ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BZ9958). The two-stage structure is crucial: the attachment confers a right to preservation only, and not to delivery or inspection. Actually inspecting the attached documents requires separate judicial authorisation, in which the court determines which part of the material may be inspected and safeguards confidentiality.
The ordinary rules on attachment apply, which means that a claim in the main proceedings must follow in good time after the attachment has been levied (Section 704(2) DCCP). The Supreme Court has confirmed that the claim for inspection itself, brought in separate proceedings or as an interlocutory application, counts as that claim in the main proceedings; where it is not brought, or brought too late, the attachment lapses (Supreme Court 5 December 2025, ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1812). Inspection may also be claimed from a third party holding the documents. A right to refuse to give evidence, or a weighty interest in confidentiality, may set limits to the inspection.
What decides the outcome
The outcome is rarely decided by a single requirement. What decides it is the precise delineation of what is being requested and the substantiation of the legitimate interest for each category of documents. The strongest position is held by a party that describes the documents sharply, makes the interest concrete, identifies the legal relationship and tests the claim under the new Section 194 DCCP rather than under the repealed Section 843a DCCP. A well-prepared claim for inspection, combined where appropriate with an attachment for the preservation of evidence, can decide a dispute before the proceedings on the merits have even begun.
Which route: interlocutory application, petition or preliminary relief
The right of inspection in Section 194 DCCP says nothing about which court is to deal with the request, and that choice tends to decide the outcome. Where the case is already entered on the court roll, the interlocutory route of Section 195 DCCP applies, or Section 195a DCCP where a third party holds the information. Where the case has not yet been entered, the route is a petition for a preliminary evidentiary measure (Sections 196 and 197 DCCP), and in urgent cases the provisional relief judge. Section 223 DCCP offers no basis: providing documents is definitive by its nature and cannot apply for the duration of the proceedings alone. Whether inspection may be sought in preliminary relief proceedings while a case on the merits is pending is a point on which the district courts differ. Inspection of documents is not an interim measure: choosing the right procedural route sets out the routes and the two lines in the 2025 and 2026 case law side by side.